Are There Different Causes and Consequences of Poverty by Gender?

In both the male and female focus groups and interviews, participants were asked if and in what ways the experiences, causes and consequences of poverty differed for men and women. One of the key foci of this discussion was whether, and why, women are at a disadvantage relative to men in terms of economic security.

Opinion was split on whether there are differences in the extent to which men and women were at risk from poverty and insecurity of employment, income, or access to food. With respect to how these views differed between male and female focus groups, slightly more men than women

Box 4: Ill-health is a Major Reported Cause of Temporary Shortfalls

 “My husband used to have a business. It went off since he was sick and no children could continue running the business. The standard of living was going down at that time. Now it’s kind of going back to normal, since all of my children are working” (Female,Tana Toraja).

 “Because my child was sick, I borrowed money from a moneylender, of course with interest. So I became poorer.” (Participant, Sibolga)

52

felt that there were no gender differences in insecurity and the risk of poverty. Women’s views, on the other hand, were somewhat more varied; they were more divided on whether it is men or women who are at greater risk of falling into poverty, or whether the risk is the same.

Those who argued there are no differences stressed that families, not individuals, face particular risks and challenges. Of these, a few respondents (men in particular) argued that the

family’s situation depends primarily on the man: “If the man is poor, automatically the whole family is poor” (man from Pekalongan); “If the man is not working then he cannot give money to his wife” (man from Kulon Progo). A few participants also said that risk is equal for men and women because any individual may possess the characteristics that would put them at risk, for instance lack of skill or indolence. One female respondent, from Sibolga said: “Every lazy person has the same risk of becoming poor”. Another, from Pemantang Siantar said that the extent to which someone is vulnerable to economic shocks “depends on the person” and not necessarily on the gender.

Of those who felt that women are more vulnerable to poverty, the explanations offered tended to differ for the male and female focus groups and there was also variation within male and female groups. Men and women both referred to women’s greater expenses, but characterized

these differently. A group of participants, men in particular, felt the reason women were more

likely to be poor was their “higher needs”; that is, the fact that unlike men, who have few needs, women require cosmetics, clothes, jewelry and so forth. Women also sometimes said that had more needs than men, but they tended to explain this very differently, saying it was because they have to take care of children, while men “only take care of themselves” (female from Kediri, East Java). Others, both men and women, offered explanations that alluded to women’s lower

educational achievement and more limited income-generating options. This, some argued,

was especially true for widows and single women who have children in their care.

Some respondents argued that that it was easier for women than men to get by. A female respondent in Astana, for example, felt that “Women [have it] easier in getting jobs. Women can sell things in the crowd, for men it is difficult.” Further, there was some feeling that the situation has been changing in favor of women. A small number of respondents, both male and female,

said that it was easier now for women to find jobs and engage in income-generating activities (such as selling goods in a market) than a few years ago. Another female respondent,

in Kota Bandung, West Java, agreed: “Women can borrow money. Now women [have it] easier to get jobs, while for men it is difficult.” A man from in Kulon Progo said that in his community, “now there is a cigarette and wig manufacturer that can help [women], because the workers are all women.”

Many respondents, particularly women, felt that the psychological impacts of poverty were very different for men and women—and harder for women. They commonly remarked that

while men were often lazy, apathetic or careless in their spending habits (using their money to buy cigarettes and coffee, or to gamble, for instance), women were much more concerned with meeting the family’s daily needs. Many of the women explained that for them, the risk of poverty weighs more on their minds than on their husbands’. A female participant from Ujung Pandang echoed this sentiment: “We ladies are more concerned [with] things in the house and

53

the family than men. When we lack things. we will get a headache.” A third woman explained: “Men usually don’t understand daily needs. If there is no money, it doesn’t matter [to them] as long as there is food. But for women, if there is no money, they [try to] find it, and worry about not giving pocket money to the children. Men are too relaxed for this kind of thing, unlike women who always think. When a child asks for pocket money, men will just sit quietly but women will try to borrow from others because they feel pain if they do not provide it.” Another woman felt that the difference is also one of patience and adaptability: “Women are usually patient in facing poverty. While men are usually impatient and easily get angry” This view was shared by other women, and a few men.